1. Colorado:
on June 11, the 10th circuit ruled that any Colorado adult resident may circulate
a city initiative petition. The city of Arvada (a suburb of Denver) didn't permit
non-residents to circulate city initiative petitions, but that city ordinance
is now void. Chandler v City of Arvada, Colorado, 292 F 3d 1236. The
vote was 3-0. The decision was written by Judge John Porfilio, a Reagan appointee,
and signed by Judges Stephanie Seymour, a Carter appointee, and Tom Stagg, a
Nixon appointee.

The city had
argued that the City Clerk has no authority to subpoena non-residents to attend
any hearing on whether a petition is invalid. But the Court noted that any circulator
who feared such a hearing is always free to move outside the city, so that process
already had a loophole. Also, the court said that the city is free to require
that all circulators promise in advance to submit to city jurisdiction, should
such a hearing ever be needed. Finally, the court noted that no such hearing
had ever been held anyway.

This is the
first post-Buckley precedent on whether non-residents of a city may circulate
city initiatives (the 1999 U.S. Supreme Court Buckley decision had said
that petitioning is protected by the First Amendment). The new City of Arvada
precedent will obviously help initiative proponents. It will also help to
invalidate laws that require circulators for candidates to live in the district
in which the candidate is running.

2. Oklahoma:
on August 15, the State Supreme Court re-affirmed its decision of November 13,
2001, that signatures on initiative petitions cannot be disqualified just because
that signer's name does not appear on the state's computerized list of registered
voters. In re Initiative Petition Number 365, no. 94155.

Opponents
of that opinion had asked for a rehearing almost nine months ago, but that rehearing
has now been denied. As a result, it appears that it will be much easier for
initiatives to qualify in Oklahoma, since virtually all signatures will be presumed
valid. It is not yet known if this principle will be extended to petitions to
qualify a new party, or an independent presidential candidate.

3. Utah:
on August 26, the State Supreme Court struck down the distribution requirement
for statewide initiative petitions. Galligan v Walker, no. 02-0545. The
vote was 3-2. The law had required a petition signed by 10% of the last gubernatorial
vote, and had further required that percentage in at least 20 out of Utah's
29 counties.

The Court
cited Bush v Gore, specifically the sentence, "Having once granted the
right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate
treatment, value one person's vote over that of another". The Court pointed
out that a voter in Daggett County (the state's smallest county) had 1,000 times
as much power over whether an initiative qualifies, as a voter in Salt Lake
County. As a result of the decision, an initiative may qualify if it obtains
signatures equal to 10% of the last gubernatorial vote, regardless of where
the signatures are collected.

The state
is still free to require a distribution requirement, as long as it uses units
of equal population, such as legislative districts. States which use legislative
or congressional districts are Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri and Montana.

This is the
second decision to strike down county distribution requirements for initiatives,
since Bush v Gore was released. The first one was in Idaho, in a case
that is being appealed to the 9th circuit, Idaho Coalition for Bears v Cenarussa.

Other states
with a county distribution requirement for initiatives are Arkansas, Massachusetts,
Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio and Wyoming.

The ballot
said, "This bill enacts preferential voting for state and federal elections,
except Governor. Voters would rank one to five candidate choices per office.
A candidate who receives a majority of first choice votes would be elected.
If no candidate gets a majority vote, the candidate with fewest first choice
votes is defeated. Then, remaining candidates receive the next choice votes
of voters whose first choice candidate was defeated. This process continues
until one candidate gets a majority of the combined votes. In a primary election,
the voter may only rank candidates within one party."

Supporters
believe the measure lost because the voters weren't familiar enough with the
idea. The normal response by a voter to an initiative that is not clear to that
voter, is to vote "no". Even in San Francisco, the first attempt to pass an
alternate system lost, although a very similar measure passed a few years later,
in March, 2002.

The daily
newspapers in Anchorage and Fairbanks urged a "no" vote, although the Juneau
newspaper endorsed the measure.

Although the
Republican Party endorsed the measure, neither of the state's two Republican
U.S. Senators, nor its Republican House member, endorsed it.

The vote is
historic, because never before had the voters of an entire state been given
the chance to adopt an alternative voting system.

ILLINOIS
VICTORY

On August
22, an Illinois Circuit Court ruled that a party does not lose qualified status
in a legislative or congressional district, just because the boundaries of that
district change. The effect of the ruling is to restore several Libertarian
legislative candidates to the November ballot. Hadraba v State Bd. of Elections,
02-ce-028, Cook Co.

This is the
first time political parties have ever won on this issue. Courts had ruled the
opposite way in Oregon and Connecticut in 1982. The issue only arises in the
few states that provide that a party (which is not qualified statewide) may
be qualified in certain districts. In most states, if a party isn't qualified
statewide, it can't be qualified anywhere in the state, so the issue doesn't
exist. In Illinois, a party that is not qualified statewide is nevertheless
qualified in any district if it polled 5% in the previous election.

GEORGIA
VICTORY

On July 30,
U.S. District Court Judge Beverly Martin, a Clinton appointee, reduced the number
of signatures needed for minor party and independent candidates for the U.S.
House, for 2002 only. Parker v Barnes, 1:02-cv-1883, Atlanta.

The only difference
this decision makes is in the 11th district, where Libertarian Wayne Parker
made a serious attempt to qualify. As a result of the decision, his requirement
was lowered from 14,337 signatures, to 9,558 signatures. He submitted 18,000,
and is still waiting to learn if the petition is valid. If so, he will be the
first minor party nominee on the ballot for U.S. House from Georgia since 1940.
Georgia has required petitions signed by 5% of the registered voters since 1943,
and no minor party candidate for U.S. House has ever complied with that requirement.

The basis
for the decision was that the state requires all signatures to be collected
between early February and early August, yet the new district boundaries weren't
known until early April. Since one-third of the normal petitioning period was
useless, the judge cut the number of signatures by one-third.

ALABAMA

U.S. District
Court Judge Myron Thompson, a Carter appointee, will rule soon on whether to
place several independent candidates on the ballot. All of them were kept off
the ballot because the state changed the deadline from July 1, to June 4, and
put this change into effect on May 28.

Three of the
candidates were running for legislative or county office, and each of them needed
300 or 400 valid signatures. These candidates collected their signatures, but
were late turning them in because of the sudden deadline change. The fourth
candidate, Johnny Swanson, who is running for U.S. Senate, didn't obtain the
necessary 39,536 signatures. He had planned to collect most of them at the polls
around the state on primary day on June 4, but the new deadline made this impossible.

The cases
are Swanson v Bennett, 02T-644-N, and Campbell v Bennett, 02T-784-N.
Plaintiffs argued that it violates due process to change the deadline in the
middle of the process.

At a trial
on August 27, Swanson also argued that the new deadline itself is unconstitutionally
early, and that the number of signatures is likewise unconstitutional. He pointed
out that the state only requires 5,000 signatures for an independent presidential
candidate. Since he submitted more than 5,000 valid signatures, he argues the
state has no need for a higher requirement for statewide independent and minor
party candidates who are running for office other than president.

ALASKA
INDEPENDENT VOTER VICTORY

On August
26, an Alaska Court granted an injunction to let an independent voter vote on
an initiative, even though he was not willing to vote in any party's primary.
Halloran v State, 3AN-02-10420.

Alaska had
thoughtlessly placed an initiative on the primary ballot, and yet had not printed
up any ballots for registered independents who wanted to vote for that initiative,
but who didn't want to vote in the primary election of any of the state's six
parties.

CONNECTICUT
PRIMARY LAWSUIT

The last B.A.N.
reported that a U.S. District Court judge had ruled that Connecticut's law
on primary ballot access is probably unconstitutional.

On August
9, the U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, found that the lower court had made
a technical error, and ruled that this year's primary (set for September 10)
will proceed under the old rules. Campbell v Bysiewicz, 02-7819. However,
the 2nd circuit didn't say anything about the merits of the ballot access law.
The case is back in U.S. District Court for a determination of the law's constitutionality.
The law bars all candidates from running in a Democratic or Republican primary,
unless the candidate has at least 15% support at a party caucus.

The 2nd Circuit
ruled that since the Democratic and Republican Parties support the state's primary
ballot access law, the plaintiffs made a legal error by failing to sue them
as well as the Secretary of State. Therefore, plaintiffs had to amend their
complaint and "start over".

It is possible
that, eventually, the 2nd circuit will rule that political parties have a First
Amendment right of association to decide for themselves, what the ballot access
requirements should be in their primaries. Courts have upheld the right of parties
to decide for themselves who should vote in their primaries. But there is no
precedent that the major parties in a single state can decide how to nominate
candidates.

CALIF.
PRIMARY DATE

On August
26, the lower house of the California legislature passed SB 1975. If the Senate
concurs with the Assembly amendments, the bill will probably become law.

The bill establishes
two separate primaries, a presidential primary in March, and a primary for all
other office in June. Approximately half the states already use this split system,
in which there are two different primary elections in presidential years. California
used this system before 1944.

ARIZONA
PRIMARIES

On August
5, U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins, a Clinton appointee, ruled that
an Arizona election law is unconstitutional. That law forces parties to let
independent voters vote in their primary. The Libertarian Party argued that
it only wants registered Libertarians to vote in its primary, and the judge
upheld the party. Az. Lib't. Party v Bd. of Supervisors, cv02-144, Tucson.

However, two
days later, the 9th circuit stayed the decision. This means that, pending the
state's appeal, the old law will remain in effect. The stay was granted because
the state said that it was too late to implement the decision for this year's
primary, which is on September 10.

The Democratic
and Republican Parties have not taken a position on whether they want independents
to vote in their primary or not.

CAMPAIGN
FINANCE RESTRICTIONS OK'd

Two U.S. Courts
of Appeals recently upheld severe restrictions on campaign financing:

1. Ohio:
on August 22, the 6th circuit refused to grant a rehearing in Frank v City
of Akron, 00-3050. The original decision had upheld campaign contribution
limits as low as $100 for Akron city council candidates.

2. Vermont:
on August 7, the 2nd circuit voted 2-1 to uphold expenditure limits, for candidates
for state office. Landell v Sorrell, 00-9159. The result was surprising,
since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated expenditure limits in 1976 in Buckley
v Valeo. Plaintiffs filed for a rehearing on August 20.

KANSAS
GAIN

On August
22, the Natural Law Party filed a federal lawsuit against a Kansas law which
says that parties must have only one word in their name. Natural Law Party
v Thornburgh, 02-2390, Kansas City. The state has already indicated that
it will not contest the lawsuit. No other state had such a law.

ARKANSAS
LOSS

On August
2, U.S. District Court William Wilson, a Clinton appointee, refused to put the
Libertarian Party on the ballot. Langguth v Priest, 4:02cv-306.

Arkansas statutory
law requires a party to submit a petition signed by 3% of the last gubernatorial
vote, or 21,181 signatures. The law also requires a statewide non-presidential
independent to submit 10,000 signatures. In 1996 and again in 1999, another
federal judge, George Howard, had ruled that since the state only requires 10,000
signatures for independents, it cannot require more signatures for new parties.

Judge Howard
had also ruled that if a new party submits a petition and it lacks sufficient
signatures, the state must give it another few weeks to complete the petition
(this is called a "cure period"). The basis for this was that since the state
permits a "cure period" for initiatives, it must provide the same for new parties.
The legislature amended the law to provide for a "cure period" for new parties,
but did not lower the number of signatures needed.

The Libertarian
Party this year submitted 10,327 signatures. The state checked the signatures
and found that there were fewer than 10,000 valid. It also refused to give the
party a "cure period", and insisted that it need not follow Judge Howard's earlier
ruling that only 10,000 signatures are needed.

Judge Wilson,
in the new lawsuit, upheld the state's refusal to provide a "cure period". He
seemed to feel that the "cure period" was only required for parties that submit
a petition signed by 21,181 signatures. This isn't logical, since the 21,181
had already been invalidated in the past lawsuits. The party is appealing.

POSTAL
PETITIONING

The long-awaited
trial on whether petitioning should be permitted on post office sidewalks will
be October 8-17 in Washington, D.C. This case was filed on June 1, 2000. Initiative
& Referendum Institute v U.S. Postal Service, 1:00-cv-1246.

D.C.
LOSS

On August
7, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals voted to keep Washington's Mayor
off the Democratic primary ballot. He will now run for re-nomination by write-in.
The primary is September 10.

Anthony Williams,
the Mayor, needed 2,000 signatures of registered Democrats. He hired a group
of circulators who submitted many forged signatures. However, there were more
than 2,000 signatures which appeared to be valid. But, because the circulators
refused to answer questions about their procedures, the Board of Elections had
invalidated the entire petition. Also, the Board also fined the Mayor $277,700.
The Court upheld the Board. Williams v D.C. Bd. of Elections, 02-AA-854.

D.C. requires
circulators to be registered voters in the District. This law is almost certainly
unconstitutional, but the court did not rule on this law.

VOTER
REGISTRATION

Voters in
California and Colorado will vote this November on whether to permit voter registration
at the polls on election day. Colorado voters will also vote on an initiative
to make it easier for Democrats and Republicans to get on primary ballots.

MORE
TAX DATA

The last B.A.N.
had a chart showing how much money each party received from the check-off
on state income tax forms. However, that chart omitted Iowa. Iowa results: Dem.
$52,348; Rep. $48,674; Green $4,419.

2002
PETITIONING

Changes since
the August 1 B.A.N:

1. Libertarian:
on in Ill., Iowa, La., Md., N.H., N.Y., Pa.

2. Green:
on in Mo. and Pa.

3. Reform:
finished in New York.

4. Natural
Law: removed from the Oregon ballot due to failure to meet the registration
test.

The August
1 B.A.N. had a chart, showing when (over the last 110 years) state legislatures
made severely restrictive changes to ballot access laws for minor party and
independent candidates.

This issue
of B.A.N. has a chart on page four, showing the opposite information.
It shows (again, over the last 110 years) when states voluntarily made
ballot access easier. As with the earlier chart, only significant changes
are included. If the deadline was improved by at least 45 days, or if the number
of signatures was cut in half (or reduced even more), then the change is included.
Changes caused because a court declared a law unconstitutional are not
included.

The chart
shows that the best 4-year period was 1997-2000. That period seems to have been
better than the current period, which started in 2001. In the current period,
the only significant improvements have been in Washington state (deadline for
minor party and independent presidential candidates moved from July to September);
and Michigan, Minnesota and Oregon (those three states made it easier for a
party to remain on the ballot). Of course, the current 4-year period won't end
until the end of 2004, so the current period could still end up as a good one.

AMERICA
FIRST PARTY CONVENTION

The America
First Party held its founding national convention in Orlando, Florida, August
8-11, and created a platform. The party had hoped that former Congressman James
Traficante would address the convention, and that he would declare his membership
in the party. However, he is in prison in his home state of Ohio. The party
played a videotape that he made before he was imprisoned.

Linda Muller,
spokesperson for the Pat Buchanan movement, declared in a mass e-mail on August
14 that "The America First Party is the new home for the Brigades!". For more
information about the party, see www.americafirstparty.org.
The party is not on the ballot statewide in any state this year.

MINOR
PARTIES AND INITIATIVES

This year,
minor parties have been active in qualifying statewide ballot questions. The
Constitution Party qualified a referendum in North Dakota, which won on June
11. It repealed a law that the legislature had passed earlier. The legislature
permitted banks to sell, trade or exchange data about their customers, but the
voters canceled that law.

Libertarians
in three states have qualified initiatives on this year's November ballots:
an Arkansas initiative would repeal the sales tax on food; a Massachusetts initiative
would repeal the state income tax; a South Dakota initiative would provide that
juries be informed of their common law right to judge the law as well as the
evidence.

POLL
IN CALIFORNIA

The Public
Policy Institute released a poll on August 28 showing that the Green Party and
the Libertarian Party candidates for California Governor are each at 4%.

SOCIALIST
WORKERS PARTY

The Socialist
Workers Party has been exempt from reporting its campaign contributors, or its
expenditures, since 1982. However, its federal exemption runs out at the end
of this year. The party has asked the FEC to extend it.

B.A.N.
MOURNS BOB BICKFORD

For many years,
Bob Bickford, a software designer in Washington state, did all the work of putting
back issues of Ballot Access News on the web. He never asked any payment
for this work. He died at the end of July. B.A.N. expresses sorrow at
his death, and gratitude for his help.